Uncategorized

Key decision made on retirement

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on impending retirement.

Decision-making can be a liberating experience.

It brings relief and an almost palpable feeling of weight lifting off one’s shoulders.

I made such a decision this week. I have decided when I’m going to officially “retire.”

It will occur on my 66th birthday, which arrives on Dec. 17, 2015. That will be the day I plan to start collecting Social Security income.

Big deal, you say? What’s so special about that? For starters, that will be the day I can start drawing SSI without incurring a penalty if I choose to keep working part-time. I become eligible for my full Social Security benefit on my 66th birthday. I am working two part-time jobs at the moment and I’m likely to keep working at them even after I start drawing my “retirement” income.

I feel quite good about making this decision. It signals another big turning point in my life since the moment I stopped working full time as a daily print journalist. I won’t go into the details of that event, except to say that I wasn’t ready for that moment to arrive. It did. The circumstances of that moment still anger me but a year and a half later I’m actually glad to have moved on to this phase of life.

My wife and I haven’t been this happy in years. We’ve been able to travel some in our RV. Our granddaughter is growing and developing beautifully. Our sons are thriving. I’m working these two part-time jobs and enjoying them both immensely, mostly because neither of them places much pressure on me. The auto dealership job allows me to meet people and get reacquainted with old friends; the blog I write for PanhandlePBS.org allows me to stay involved with public affairs TV programming.

Of course, I have this blog to which I often contribute several times daily.

I now await another key stage of my retired life when I turn 66 and will start collecting some income for which I’ve worked many years.

There’ll be more to report on this blog as we move forward.

A decision on when to start collecting Social Security might not seem like a biggie to some. It is to me. I’m glad I’ve made it.

Uncategorized

Make peace or deal with Hamas?

Put yourself in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s shoes.

You govern a country of some 8,000 square miles surrounded by nations that at one time or another vowed to exterminate you and your constituents. Yes, you’ve made peace with a couple of those nations — Jordan and Egypt. The rest of the region remains iffy.

You’re in the middle of peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and then you learn that the leader of that government has brokered a deal with one of the world’s most ferocious terrorist organizations, Hamas. That organization has orchestrated terrorist attacks on your country from the Gaza Strip, which the Palestinian Authority governs.

The PA now wants to form a “unity government” that includes Hamas.

Do they want peace with Israel or not? Netanyahu has called off peace talks because the PA has formed that arrangement with Hamas, which still vows to exterminate Israel.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-calls-peace-talks-after-palestinian-deal-n88726

Can you really blame the Israeli prime minister? I cannot.

Netanyahu is furious with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for agreeing to the Hamas deal.

Having seen some of the damage that Hamas has inflicted on southern Israel myself, I understand fully why Netanyahu has called off the peace talks. I was part of a group that toured Israel in the spring of 2009 and we saw damage done by rocket fire in Sderot and Ashkelon, near the border with Gaza, which had erupted in violence prior to our arrival in Israel.

It’s a blow to Secretary of State John Kerry, who persuaded the sides to talk to each other after they didn’t speak for five years. Kerry still believes a path to peace is still open, but it’s now been littered by the presence of Hamas in this arrangement with one of the principals in the talks.

“He can’t have it both ways,” Netanyahu said of Abbas. “He has to choose: Peace with Israel or a pact with Hamas.”

Netanyahu is right to be angry.

Uncategorized

Bundy said what about blacks?

Cliven Bundy has gone from right-wing hero to racist goat just like that.

Oh … my … goodness.

Bundy is the Nevada rancher who’s fighting with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees he is being told to pay because he is running his cattle on public land. He’s resisting the BLM order and has drawn fawning praise from right-wing media personalities for his defiance of the federal mandate.

Now comes word that the guy is quite capable of saying some truly idiotic things.

Such as this about African-Americans, according to ThinkProgress.com: “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Bundy said at a news conference Saturday, recounting how he had seen black people in a public housing project in North Las Vegas. “Because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Better off as slaves? Did this clown actually say such a thing?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/24/3430265/bundy-racist-comments/

The folks who’ve been cheering him on have been a bit slow to condemn his commentary as the racist rant that it is.

One key Senate Republican, Dean Heller of Nevada, was quick to put lots of distance between himself and Bundy. Heller said he “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., followed suit.

Bundy is breaking the law by grazing his cattle on federal land. The BLM is seeking to collect fees that Bundy owes it. That’s it. He’s become a hero to those who despise the feds.

Now this. Good bleeping grief.

Uncategorized

'I am not running …'

Here’s how you parse a statement and keep certain political speculation alive.

U.S. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told a radio talk show host the following: “I am not running for president. But I know a lot of my colleagues are, and I think that you have to be — you probably have to, if you are going to get serious about it, get going pretty early.”

Thune: ‘I am not running for president’

Did he say he won’t run for president in 2016? Did he offer that “Shermanesque” statement about refusing to accept his party’s nomination if offered or refusing to serve if elected? Again, no.

He said “I am not running,” meaning that he is speaking in the present tense. No mention of the future.

This is the kind of word game that political watchers play in Washington, D.C. Thune had been thought to be a candidate in 2012. He didn’t run. His name has surfaced yet again as a potential Republican presidential candidate for 2016. And why not? He’s a physically attractive guy. He’s well-spoken and has been a quietly effective senator for his South Dakota constituents.

Sen. Thune’s name will continue to be mentioned as a possible candidate until he declares categorically that not only is he not running, but that he won’t run, no matter what.

Hey, the campaign has begun. It’s only two years and five months until the next presidential election. Time will fly by.

Uncategorized

What's wrong with Meet the Press?

2 Comments

Michelle Malkin is a noted conservative firebrand/columnist whose views on the “mainstream media” are well-known.

I read her recent column on “Meet the Press”‘s ratings troubles and she lays the problem squarely at the feet of the host, David Gregory, who she calls a lot of names.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/23/nbcs_cognitive_dissonant_hack_syndrome_122382.html

She said he’s boorish, a “jerk,” he throws tantrums, he hates conservatives. In other words, he’s a “typical Washington elite.”

OK, I’ll accept her bias going in. My own view of Gregory’s troubles can be summed up simply. He isn’t Tim Russert, the man who preceded Gregory in the moderator’s chair on TV’s longest-running program.

Russert died of a massive heart attack in 2008 at the age of 58. NBC-TV went to great lengths to eulogize Russert, an everyman from Buffalo, N.Y., who went to law school, worked for Democratic U.S. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan and Democratic New York Gov. Mario Cuomo before settling into the “Meet the Press” chair he occupied with such distinction.

Malkin’s recollections of Gregory’s hectoring of NRA guru Wayne LaPierre and Cardinal Timothy Dolan are vivid. They’re also accurate portrayals of the way Gregory often crosses an invisible line that is supposed to separate him from the issues he is covering.

I didn’t know about the tantrums or the boorish behavior until I read Malkin’s column (see attached link).

To my eyes and ears, Gregory just hasn’t met the standard Russert set with his equal-opportunity grilling of guests. He was tough on lefties and righties, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

The one thing Russert did so artfully was to research his interview subjects’ own statements. He would then use their words to make a point and ask them to clarify what they said. If they could, so much the better — for them. If they couldn’t, well, score one for Russert.

Malkin also noted that Russert conducted himself like the gentleman he was and it showed in the way he handled his tasks as “Meet the Press” moderator.

I also should add that a little self-deprecation goes a long way in the ego-filled world of TV journalism. Russert could poke fun at himself, such as when he told the story of when NBC asked him to fill in on “Meet the Press.” “What?” Russert would say. “Look at this face.” It didn’t matter. He knew his stuff and was good at what he did.

It is that legacy that is dragging David Gregory down. Pure and simple.

Uncategorized

Now … a good word

I’ve been bitching up a storm lately about this and that.

I now want to say something good — are you ready? — about an insurance company and an auto-body repair shop.

My wife and I pay a hefty sum each month for motor vehicle insurance. This week I learned that it’s a good thing to have, even if we grit our teeth while paying the monthly premium.

On March 27, someone sideswiped our big ol’ 2011 Dodge Ram pickup as it was parked. It got scuffed on the right side. I filed a claim with my State Farm Insurance agent immediately.

What happened next is quite stunning.

The agency filed my claim as an “uninsured motorist” claim, given that I didn’t have the name of the person who dinged my truck; that category of claim knocked my deductible down to $250. I took the truck to the adjuster four days later. The adjuster looked it over and settled on an estimate of $1,444 to repair the damage.

We got a check two days after that.

Meanwhile, I called a local body shop, then took the truck in for the guy to examine it. He said it would take “maybe a week” to get the truck repaired. I had the money in hand.

The insurance company then arranged for a car for my wife and me to drive while the truck was being repaired. The company paid for the rental.

We delivered the truck this past Wednesday to the body shop. Tuesday, my cell phone rang and Jason at Soncy Road Body Shop told me the truck was ready to be picked up.

We got the truck, paid for the repair with the insurance check and drove it home.

Oh, and as a courtesy, the body shop washed the truck and detailed the interior to such a degree I am now afraid to take it anywhere for fear of getting it dirty all over again.

We complain about insurance companies. Sometimes they deserve it. This time, a particular agency in Amarillo — along with a local auto-repair shop — deserve pats on the back.

Uncategorized

Changes coming to AMA

The Wright Amendment expires later this year, meaning that some changes are in store for an air carrier that serves Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport.

Southwest Airlines, headquartered at Dallas Love Field, will reduce its daily service at AMA from seven flights to five.

What’s the connection?

Well, the Wright Amendment, enacted in 1974, was meant to protect the then-new Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport by restricting travel from Love Field. Southwest Airlines planes couldn’t take off for destinations without having to stop first in close-in locations. The amendment, named after its author, former U.S. Rep. Jim Wright, D-Fort Worth, has been scrapped now that D-FW has grown up and become one of the world’s pre-eminent air terminals.

What’s in store for AMA? Two fewer Southwest flights daily, for starters. Airport officials aren’t signaling any panic. They’ll continue to compete for air service in and out of their shiny new terminal. Southwest will be able to depart Love Field for farther non-stop destinations.

Amarillo, though, isn’t without some economic weapons of its own to toss at carriers looking for a place to land. It’s used one of them with effectiveness in the past. The Amarillo Economic Development Corporation once paid American Airlines more than $1 million annually to retain jet service in and out of AMA. The money came from sales tax revenue it collected, believing that the jet service would attract business to Amarillo by providing more comfortable and speedier air service. Critics scoffed at the idea of paying for jet service, but it worked. American Airlines retained the jet service, then scrapped it for a time, and then returned it to Amarillo — as well as to other regional airports around the country.

I’m not too worried that AMA is going to be left in the cold once the Wright Amendment passes into history.

However, if business falters at AMA, the AEDC has a large pile of money at its disposal to dangle in front of those who are looking for some incentives to do business with Amarillo. The precedent has been set.

Uncategorized

Elect federal judges? Oh, please!

Many of those on the right are quite fond of criticizing “unelected federal judges” who issue rulings that go against their world view.

What, then, is their alternative? Do they want to elect those who sit on the federal bench? Do they wish to do away with the federal judiciary?

I mention this because the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a University of Michigan policy that disallows affirmative action practices when considering who the school should admit. Did those on the left issue similar cries against those “unelected judges”? I didn’t hear any.

And yet, when judges keep striking down states’ bans on same-sex marriage, the cries go out from those who think the federal judiciary is overreaching when it declares states cannot write laws that violate U.S. constitutional provisions, such as the one that provides for “equal protection” under the law, regardless of sexual orientation.

Perhaps my favorite criticism of the high court came when it ruled 5-4 to uphold the Affordable Care Act. The ruling was narrowly defined and it was decided by a single vote, when Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority to keep the ACA intact. The criticism — from the right, of course — went something like this: The law should be tossed out because a narrow majority on the Supreme Court voted to keep it, and that the one-vote majority really didn’t mean the law is constitutional.

The founders had it exactly right when they empowered the president with the authority to appoint judges to the bench for life. They sought to de-politicize the federal bench by disallowing the election of federal judges.

States, of course, retain the right to elect judges. Texas even elects judges on partisan ballots, meaning that judicial candidates of one party has a built-in advantage over candidates of the other party. In Texas, that means if you’re a Republican, you’re in; it used to be the other way around, when Democrats were dominant.

Either way, good judges from the “out” party are kicked out simply because they are of the wrong political persuasion.

The federal judiciary, from the Supreme Court on down, functions precisely as the framers intended for it.

Uncategorized

City probe hits serious hot button

Can there be a more sensitive issue for many human beings than allegations that animals are being “improperly” euthanized?

So it is with Amarillo Animal Control officials who are under investigation by the police department.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1034678#.U1gs61JOWt8

I believe there needs to be some serious questions asked here.

Allegations have been flying about the way Animal Control personnel are disposing of unwanted pets. The use of the term “improper euthanizing” sends chills up my spine and I’m sure the spines of others. Such supposedly improper activities cover a wide — and frightening — array of methods.

There allegedly is an absence of scales at the animal shelter that enable employees to weigh animals to ensure they administer the proper amount of drugs to put the animal down. What else is going on out there?

Scott McDonald is the acting animal control director. He isn’t talking much about what’s being investigated, nor is he discussing the administrative leaves ordered for two employees caught in the middle of the allegations.

Let’s hope the city releases the clamps on what it so far isn’t saying about this matter. Human beings, sensitive creatures that we are when it comes to the treatment of animals, need some answers as to what’s going on at the city-financed animal shelter.

What’s more, we human residents of Amarillo need to know what’s being done to correct what allegedly has gone wrong.

We’re all ears, City Hall.

Uncategorized

Liar, liar …

Let’s talk briefly one more time about lies and lying.

President Obama’s critics accuse him of “lying” about the Affordable Care Act, specifically about the pledge he made that Americans can “keep their doctor if they so wish.” It turns out, with the unveiling of the ACA, that wasn’t necessarily the case.

Republicans jumped all over Obama for “lying” to Americans.

The dictionary defines “lying” as the intentional telling of an untruth. To suggest someone is lying is to know beyond a doubt the person made a statement knowing it is untrue.

Did the president knowingly assert the “keep-your-doctor” pledge knowing it wasn’t necessarily true? I don’t know, and neither do his critics.

I also need to revisit one more time the so-called “lies” President Bush told us about whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The president used WMD as a reason for going to war.

We invaded Iraq in March 2003, looked high and low for those WMD. We found none.

Intelligence analysts all over the world said Saddam had the WMD. Secretary of State Colin Powell said so in a statement to the United Nations. Were they lying? Did they purposely tell a falsehood? I don’t know that any more than I know that Barack Obama “lied” about the ACA.

I just have grown weary of the casual use of this particular “L” word.

How about cooling it until someone can produce incontrovertible proof that he or she is a true-blue mind reader?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience